Feed aggregator

Lip Service

TownHall Latest columns - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 22:35
Military justice is to justice as military music is to music. Not the same. Not the same at all. 2015-04-24T00:01:00-04:00 2015-04-25T03:35:03Z Paul Greenberg

The Depressing Appeal of Hillary's Phony Populism

TownHall Latest columns - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 22:35
There was a time when Hillary Clinton was a bona fide leftist radical, but those days have past, swallowed up by her lust for power and money. 2015-04-24T00:01:00-04:00 2015-04-25T03:35:03Z David Limbaugh

Clinton Restoration Could Be in Jeopardy

TownHall Latest columns - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 22:35
How should one think about the unfolding allegations rocking the Clinton Industrial Complex (which includes both her campaign and her foundation)? 2015-04-24T00:01:00-04:00 2015-04-25T03:35:03Z Jonah Goldberg

An Investor’s Lament!

TownHall Latest columns - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 22:35
Having been besieged lately by brokers who say they have the investment (stock) of a lifetime, I find myself retreating from the onslaught. I somehow get the feeling that it is December 1999 or late 2007 and the next move could be a decisive one and bad for me. 2015-04-24T00:01:00-04:00 2015-04-25T03:35:03Z Bill Tatro

“Woman in Gold” Review: True Drama Will Inspire Audiences

TownHall Latest columns - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 22:35
In 2014, George Clooneys film The Monuments Men sought to bring attention to the brave Allied soldiers who were sent to prevent the destruction of cultural artifacts during the waning days of World War II. 2015-04-24T00:01:00-04:00 2015-04-25T03:35:03Z John Hanlon

Krauthammer: Clinton's 'self-inflicted wounds' have redefined her

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 20:36
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Friday that Hillary Clinton has squandered a chance to start fresh with her presidential campaign, instead allowing “self-inflicted” wounds to redefine her as someone not to be trusted.

New mayor of Mo. city met by police, suspended over alleged voter fraud

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 18:34
The new mayor of a Missouri city had a tough first day on the job when she was met by police at City Hall, and informed she had been suspended over allegations of voter fraud.

Veteran defense lawyers see possible criminal inquiry for Clintons

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 18:04
With a sitting Democratic senator recently indicted on federal bribery and corruption charges, top criminal defense lawyers in the nation’s capital say Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton could conceivably face similar scrutiny, amid mounting disclosures about the tangled finances of her family’s philanthropic foundation.

Aide to Mississippi Sen. Cochran arrested on drug charge

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 17:28
An aide to Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi has been charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine after federal agents raided his home.

Carly Fiorina says she’s not being ‘mean’ to Hillary, but her gender helps

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 17:04
I was doing some web-surfing while waiting for Carly Fiorina to call for an interview when I noticed that suddenly, somehow, she was the lead story on the Drudge Report.

Attorney general bids farewell after 6-year tenure

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 15:42
Attorney General Eric Holder bid farewell to the Justice Department on Friday after six years, outlining what he said were his major accomplishments and telling staffers that they helped produce a "golden age" in the department's history.

Iraqis to get American F-16s – but can they fly them?

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 15:38
The Iraqis are getting a batch of American F-16 fighter planes to run combat missions against the Islamic State, but questions remain over whether they can fly them.

House panel threatens to cut defense secretary budget over Bergdahl stonewalling

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 14:43
The head of a powerful House panel is threatening to withhold defense funding over the department's alleged stonewalling in a probe of the controversial swap of five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Rebel Farmers and Government Cartels: How the New Deal Cartelized U.S. Agriculture

Cato Recent Op Eds - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 14:33

Trevor Burrus

Marvin Horne doesn’t look like a man in open rebellion against the United States government, but the 70-year-old raisin farmer and his wife Laura have had enough. If they get their way, they’re not going to let the U.S. Raisin Administrative Committee take their raisins anymore.

Yes, there’s a Raisin Administrative Committee.

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Horne’s case challenging the Raisin Administrative Committee. It’s the New-Deal case that took 80 years to bring.

Like an agency pulled from the pages of an Ayn Rand novel, the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC) oversees many parts of U.S. raisin production. The 47-member committee consists of different representatives from the raisin industry, including “handlers,” those who pack the raisins and prepare them for sale, and “growers,” those who grow and dry grapes. They meet in an office in Fresno and issue “marketing orders,” which decide, among other things, how many raisins should be diverted into the National Raisin Reserve each year. By taking raisins off the open market, the RAC maintains an artificially high price for raisins and keeps many, but obviously not all, raisin farmers happy. Think of it as a raisin cartel, a raisin OPEC.

Under federal law—the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), amended in 1949 to include raisins—raisin handlers are obligated to divert whatever percentage of raisins the RAC demands, and then take whatever compensation the committee offers, which is often nothing.

Marvin Horne is one of the unhappy raisin farmers who feels that the RAC has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any to begin with. More than ten years ago, Horne refused to hand over his raisins to the RAC. In response, the RAC fought back, including hiring private investigators to stake out the Hornes’ farm. Now Marvin Horne stands on the precipice of dealing the RAC a near-fatal blow—a Supreme Court opinion ruling that, under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, the RAC has to pay just compensation whenever it takes a farmer’s raisins.

The Hornes, who currently owe the government about 1.2 million pounds of raisins and approximately $700,000 in fines, have few options left except for a Supreme Court victory. Their fight against the RAC, however, is part of a proud tradition of individuals fighting against government-created cartels, especially in agriculture. Those cartels collude against consumers in ways that would be blatantly illegal in industries that don’t enjoy government sanction. Occasionally, someone will fight back against the cartel, and the industry will circle the wagons to protect its unique, anti-competitive privilege.

The New Deal

Over 200 years ago, famed economics sage Adam Smith understood the dangers of allowing competitors to collude. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Most importantly, wrote Smith, the law should not encourage such collusive, anti-competitive behavior: “But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”

During the New Deal, Smith’s wise words were wholly forgotten. From the moment President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived in office, he had cartels on his mind. Competition, he thought, was too fierce, and it was causing prices and wages to fall too low. While competition could be good, “destructive competition” was bad. The answer, thought FDR and his famed brain trust, was to use the law to promote cooperation between members of the same industry in order to ensure that competition was “fair.”

The result was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), signed by FDR on June 16, 1933. In essence, the NIRA tried to cartelize the entire economy. Businesses were encouraged to meet together in “a conspiracy against the public,” in Adam Smith’s words. But their agreements, rather than being mere handshake deals carried out in smoke-filled backrooms, were to have the force of law. An industry’s agreed-upon “code of fair competition” would be signed by the president himself, and violators could be fined or even jailed for violating the code. Just a few decades previously the federal government had passed anti-monopoly “trust busting” laws like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in order to combat anti-competitive collusion. During the New Deal, however, the government entirely changed course. What was once an unmitigated evil was seen as a necessary step on the road to recovery.

Without the force of government backing up the rules, cartels are notoriously difficult to maintain. Voluntary collusion always presents opportunities for someone to shirk the agreement in order to make extra cash while his competitors hold their prices steady. In the worst situations, shirkers are countered with mob-like tactics, from slashing tires, to breaking kneecaps, to burning down stores. When the government gets involved in enforcing cartels they essentially take-over the job of busting kneecaps. Cronies with lead pipes are replaced by bureaucrats and police officers.

But often their tactics are similar. After the “code of fair competition” for Ohio’s tire companies was passed under the NIRA, smaller tire companies found that the government’s enforcers were hardly better than the mob’s. F.H. Mills, president of Master Tire and Service, Inc. out of Youngstown, wrote to Senator William Borah, an opponent of the NIRA, of his plight. He complained in particular about a Mr. Frank Blodgett, an administrator from the National Recovery Administration. Mills “explained my conditions” to Mr. Blodgett, “and showed where it would be impossible to stay in business and comply with his request.” In response, Mr. Blodgett “demanded that he be given the right to go over my books and run my business according to his ideas.” When Mills refused, the “furious Mr. Blodgett then stated that he would put his heel upon the neck of our little company and twist it with all the force at his command.”

The little companies had it the worst. Businesses are hardly uniform, and each company faces different pressures depending on its brand name, geographic location, and other variables. The “codes of fair competition” under the NIRA did not countenance such variation. The Ohio tire code, for example, was largely written by Goodyear, Firestone, and Goodrich, and it thus primarily benefited those large companies. Before the NIRA, small manufacturers like Master Tire and Service could only survive by undercutting the nationally recognized brands in price. After the NIRA, they were compelled to raise their prices to the large manufacturers’ level. Large companies had advantages in economies of scale and service, and the NIRA stripped small companies of their only competitive advantage. And of course Goodyear, Firestone, and Goodrich wanted it that way.

“Mongrel-agencies like the RAC are cave dwellers, they hate to be brought into the light.”

Bringing Down the NIRA

All of this is important backdrop to the case that brought down the NIRA, which, like the Hornes, featured businessmen who were fed-up with government-enforced cartels.

The four Schechter brothers ran two fairly large butcher shops in Brooklyn. As Jewish immigrants, they ran a kosher shop, mostly selling poultry to retailers. They slaughtered their chickens ritualistically, in compliance with Jewish dietary law.

Their specialized company and unique clientele were the type of aberrant business that the NYC chicken cartel was ill equipped to deal with. Under the “Code of Fair Competition for the Live Poultry Industry” for NYC, the Schechter brothers’ business model was basically illegal. In order to prevent “destructive price cutting” the code prohibited “killing on the basis of grade.” In other words, customers did not have the right to “make any selection of particular birds.” As silly as it sounds, the code required the butcher to reach into the chicken coop and grab the first chicken that touched his hand, any specific selection was prohibited. If a customer wanted to buy a half coop, the butcher could only break the coop in half. Because kosher rules require that unhealthy birds be discarded, the code essentially made kosher butchery illegal.

Although the brothers tried to follow the rules, it proved nearly impossible to run their business. And neither the code enforcers nor the U.S. attorneys had much sympathy for the brothers’ situation. The government charged them with selling “unfit chickens” to two men, and they went to trial. The trial was a confusing ordeal of strange questions posed to the Schechter brothers, who spoke halting English—at one point, brother Martin was ominously asked “There is a lot of competition between you and your competition, is there not?”—and attacks on the brothers’ education levels. In the end, the judge fined them $7,425—over $100,000 today—and sentenced all four brothers to between one and three months in jail.

The chicken cartel’s mob-like enforcers seemed to have done their job.

But the Schechters refused to back down, and they took their case to the Supreme Court. They argued that Congress’s power regulate interstate commerce did not reach the local NYC poultry industry. They also argued that the NIRA delegated too much legislative power to the executive branch.

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, the justices struggled to understand that bizarre provisions of the code of fair competition. Just explaining the code elicited laughter from the courtroom audience and jokes from the justices. While the Schechters’ attorney, Joseph Heller, explained the prohibition on customer selection of chickens, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone asked “Do you mean that there can be a selection if he buys one-half the coop?” “No. You just break the box into two halves,” Mr. Heller responded. The laughter in the courtroom was amplified by Justice George Sutherland’s jape “Well, suppose, however, that all the chickens have gone over to one end of the coop?”

The Schechters won, and with their victory came the end of the National Industrial Recovery Act. It was not the end, however, of Roosevelt’s scheme to cartelize the U.S. economy.

Agricultural Cartelization

The Supreme Court may have temporarily halted Roosevelt’s plan for large-scale cartelization in business and industry, but he next set his sights on agriculture. In many ways, and certainly in the case of the Hornes, New Deal agricultural reforms are still with us today. The perseverance of bizarre things like the RAC are a testament to the permanence of even the silliest government programs.

The Hornes work under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Raisins weren’t included in the act, however, until 1949, when there was a pronounced post-war drop in demand for raisins. The government had been buying tons of raisins to send to the troops, and, after the war, raisin farmers felt somehow cheated by the return to normal levels of raisin demand. This is a recurring story in U.S. agricultural policy—farmers feeling that high, stable prices achieved during some time past were actually the “just” prices and that government should work to guarantee that price. In the New Deal, for example, the “fair” price for many agricultural commodities was determined to be the one achieved during 1910-14, a time of prosperity for farmers.

The dairy industry, in particular, was transformed by New Deal agricultural policies. As a result, the industry exists within a convoluted system of managed competition, a tangled web of subsidies and regulations where playing politics can be more important than being a good businessman who serves his customers well.

In the early 2000’s, another “agricultural outlaw” like Marvin Horne found himself fighting the dairy industry for the right to run his business as he saw fit. Hein Hettinga was a prosperous Western dairy farmer who decided to restructure his business around New Deal-era constraints. Like raisins, dairy farmers can be either “producers,” those who gather raw milk, and “handlers,” those who bottle and package milk products. Under the AMAA, farmers who only bottle milk from their own cows, so-called “producer-handlers,” can avoid paying into some of the government-imposed programs. Hettinga did just this, and he soon was undercutting the competition by up to 20 cents per gallon.

Drawing on the kind of spunky, can-do American spirit that made this country great, the dairy industry went whining to Congress. Hettinga should not be allowed to exploit that “loophole” in the law, they complained. “Loophole” is of course just cartel-speak for what would be normal business practices in a less-regulated industry.

The dairy industry has powerful lobbyists and the ears of many members of Congress. One was Harry Reid, the then minority whip, who had once snuck an amendment into a spending bill that exempted Las Vegas-area dairy farmers from some federal pricing rules. Despite the amendment, Reid’s precious Las Vegas dairy industry was still facing competition from a large milk plant that was under construction outside of town.

The horse trading went into full gear, and the patchwork of federal rules for Arizona (where Hettinga’s main plant was located), California, and Nevada presented many trading opportunities. Reid wanted exemptions for all Nevada producers, Arizona producers wanted to be protected from the threat of lower-cost Nevada milk, and California producers wanted Hettinga’s business throttled.

Lobbying money and campaign cash flowed. In the end, Hettinga was outmatched. Without even a committee hearing, the new milk bill was brought up by Reid to a nearly empty Senate chamber and passed by “unanimous consent,” which is Senate-speak for rubber-stamping backroom deals. The bill closed the Hettinga “loophole” but, ironically, or perhaps expectedly, opened up the exact same loophole for Reid’s Nevada producers.

Hein Hettinga tried to bring a legal case, but he was quickly shot down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts of appeals are bound by Supreme Court precedent, which wasn’t on Hettinga’s side. Judges Janice Rogers Brown and David Sentelle, however, added a stem-winder opinion explaining how silly they thought the law was. “Given the long-standing precedents in this area no other result is possible,” they wrote, but there was a larger lesson to be learned:

The Hettingas’ collision with the MREA [Milk Regulatory Equity Act]—the latest iteration of the venerable AMAA—reveals an ugly truth: America’s cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s.

***

And that’s how America produces milk, grows its raisins, and, once, slaughtered its chickens. Actually, it is how nearly all American agriculture is done. Silly policies that originated in failed New Deal ideas—policies that the justices themselves couldn’t help making fun of—became the law of the land. Now, the RAC exists because it exists, and, like all artificial government agencies, its first instinct is survival.

Of the two amicus briefs filed in support of the government, one was tellingly written by Sun-Maid, the largest raisin marketer in the world. The brief is a shameless defense of the RAC, of which Sun-Maid producers or handlers hold 13 of the 47 seats. The RAC, the brief explains, allows “industry participants to collectively decide whether to regulate their respective industries.” It “benefits the entire raisin industry, including petitioners, by avoiding price volatility.” In other words, let us regulate ourselves because we benefit from it. Hettinga’s big dairy competitors or the Schechters’ big poultry opponents couldn’t have said it better.

Occasionally people like the Hornes, the Schechters, or the Hettingas help expose agricultural cartels and crony capitalists for what they are—government agencies that help big businesses and hurt consumers. This happens rarely, however, because it is usually easier to work with the government than to work against it, and cartelization is usually agreeable to those in the cartel.

Mongrel-agencies like the RAC are cave dwellers, they hate to be brought into the light. They prefer to hide behind a prolix U.S. agricultural code that is essentially printed chloroform, to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain. Like bacteria specially adapted to live in harsh environments, the code is their sustenance. Only a few industry specialists really understand how the code works, and they want to keep it that way.

Trevor Burrus is a Research Fellow in the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

Consciously Sidelining Ourselves

TownHall Latest columns - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 13:35
Though Wal-Mart remains fixed in the American conscience as Sam Walton's business, it is less and less that. Walton was folksy and relatable to the Americans who shopped at Wal-Mart. Everyone could imagine Sam Walton shopping there, too. But over the years, Wal-Mart's management has passed out of the direct hands of Walton's family. 2015-04-24T00:01:00-04:00 2015-04-24T18:35:02Z Erick Erickson

NASA building temporarily evacuated over cleaning vapor

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 13:08
A vapor cloud triggered by equipment cleaning caused a temporary evacuation of a building at NASA's Goddard Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland Friday.

Official: Report that part of NSA campus evacuated untrue

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 13:08
A report that part of the National Security Agency campus in Maryland was evacuated is untrue, an agency official told Fox News.

NJ first lady quits Wall Street job as Christie weighs White House run

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 12:33
Mary Pat Christie, the wife of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, has stepped down from her job at a New York-based hedge fund as her husband prepares for a potential run for the White House.

Raisin a Laugh at the Supreme Court

Cato Recent Op Eds - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 12:28

Trevor Burrus

It’s not a good sign when Supreme Court justices laugh at the law the government is trying to defend.

When it comes to defending the Raisin Administrative Committee, however, it’s hard not to laugh.

On April 22, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Raisin Administrative Committee’s despotic power over U.S. raisin farmers. What is the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC)? Think of it as Raisin OPEC, a cartel maintained by the Department of Agriculture that has the power to take raisins from farmers and offer nothing in return.

Like OPEC, it does this to keep the price of raisins artificially high. Unlike OPEC, however, the RAC has an enforcement division, the U.S. government, and if you cross the RAC, they can come after you in court.

“When it comes to defending the Raisin Administrative Committee, it’s hard not to laugh.”

That’s what happened to Marvin Horne, who, a little over 10 years ago, decided he’d had enough of the RAC’s shenanigans and refused to turn over his crop. In response, the RAC came after him, going so far as to hire private investigators to stake out the Horne’s farm.

When you cross the RAC, you better be prepared to pay the price. For Marvin Horne, the price is $700,000—a steep fine for refusing to give the government what belongs to him.

Collusion like this usually takes place in a smoke-filled backroom, away from the prying eyes of the SEC or the Federal Trade Commission. If any other business colluded like the RAC, they would be prosecuted for blatant violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Yet, on Wednesday, the government stood before the Supreme Court and defended the RAC because it works for the benefit of the farmers.

That is, of course, the point of a cartel—to benefit the colluders and hurt consumers.

Horne is arguing to the Supreme Court that, under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which says private property can’t be taken for public use without just compensation, the RAC owes him something for his raisins. Judging by yesterday’s argument, he will probably win his case.

In addition to asking pointed and probing questions of the unfortunate government attorney charged with defending the case, the justices couldn’t resist making fun of the program entirely.

Chief Justice John Roberts joked that the government probably comes and takes the raisins “in the dark of night.” Justice Antonin Scalia joked that, while maybe the government could prohibit dangerous things from entering into commerce, these would have to be some “dangerous raisins.” Justice Elena Kagan simply asked, “We could think that this is a ridiculous program?” after which Justice Scalia said, “It doesn’t help your case that it’s ridiculous, though. You acknowledge that.”

This wasn’t the first time a group of Supreme Court justices laughed at silly government-created cartels. Eighty years ago, a different set of Supreme Court justices were laughing at the live poultry cartel for the city of New York. The poultry cartel was a product of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which was the cornerstone of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Roosevelt was obsessed with cartels as the solution to the nation’s economic woes. While the Court struck down the NIRA, cartelization policies continued to be enacted, especially in agriculture.

The RAC began in 1949 as an amendment to a New Deal-era law called theAgricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The New Deal was the genesis of our modern agricultural policies which, to put it mildly, are insane.

And although no reputable economist believes that U.S. agricultural policy makes any sense whatsoever, we seem to be stuck with organizations like the RAC, as well as hundreds more that few people have heard of—a testament to perseverance of government-granted privileges.

Explaining New Deal policies is a risible endeavor. Contrary to what schoolchildren learn, the New Deal didn’t save the country. Instead it forced the economy into a Keystone-Cops movie of regulatory madness. The Benny Hill theme is the best soundtrack for the New Deal, not “Brother Can You Spare a Dime?

Of course, Roosevelt’s failed and laughable policies had very unfunny repercussions on the poorest Americans. They also have repercussions today, such as the Raisin Administrative Committee.

Organizations like the RAC hide behind a prolix agricultural code that, to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, is like reading printed chloroform. But those with a stake in the game understand that the code supports them. Like bacteria that feed off of sulphur vents, it is their unique form of sustenance.

They’d prefer to keep their existence a secret, but thankfully cases like Horne’s help drag them into the light.

Trevor Burrus is Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

Tangled Clinton Web: Firms tied to Clintons profited in post-quake Haiti

Fox News (Politics) - Fri, 04/24/2015 - 12:08
On Jan. 12, 2010, Haiti suffered a devastating earthquake. But Peter Schweizer, author of the new book "Clinton Cash," says that: "What quickly became apparent to many people was that if you ... wanted to do business in Haiti, you had to have relationships with a Clinton."

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Syndicate content